Talk:Bain family murders/Archive 1

Police instructional video in David Bain case
I believe the David Bain case is a New Zealand Police model case with video that has been given to recruits at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua in the 1990's giving their perspective of the evidence and why they believe David Bain is guilty. The media has not picked up on this, but now that the Privy council has quashed his conviction and ordered a retrial it makes you wonder how the evidence was presented to recruits. --Zven 19:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is interesting. The case would probably be good material for a very different training video now. -- Avenue 03:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Glasses

 * The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were David's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.

I'm a bit confused about this. If the optometrist had changed his mind and decided they were David's and his statement read out in court was they they were David's then what's the problem? Is it supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's? Nil Einne 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is supposed to say changed to say they were David's mother's. Sorry! I'll fix it now. -- Avenue 07:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio problems
The articles appears to have serious copyvio problems. The prosecution and alternative theory sections are copyvio from crime.co.nz, specifically here and here. The copyright policy for crime.co.nz is here and it's clearly not GFDL or all right's released. Someone needs to go through and look for any other copyvios and remove them all. I left the 2 in in case it's useful in looking for more copyvios. Cheers Nil Einne 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed three sections which were substantially copies of pages from crime.co.nz. This leaves the article relatively neutral, but lacking in information about why the case was controversial and eventually overturned. Someone, please add a new section explaining the two theories about the murder, with an explanation of the key points of evidence the two sides argue over. Of course, the article needs to be presented in a neutral fashion, and it needs to be references point by point. The Privy Council ruling is an excellent source. Please cite paragraph numbers rather than just refer to the whole document or using page numbers which may differ according to the software used to load the .RTF file. References from crime.co.nz or news media are fine too.- gadfium 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've summarised the two sides, but haven't touched on the evidence yet. -- Avenue 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good work.- gadfium 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a fair bit on the evidence, following the Privy Council report fairly closely. They have naturally focussed on the aspects that support their conclusion of a miscarriage of justice, so the current version might seem a bit one-sided. It probably needs further expansion based on other sources such as the books or earlier appeals, but I need to take a break from it for now. -- Avenue 11:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any such further expansion could now be construed as contempt of court. From the Solicitor-General's press release: "I wish to make it very clear that it is not appropriate for there to be further public debate about [t]he evidence or any other public comment that is calculated or likely in influence a future jury. [...] Those who attempt to usurp or otherwise influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of Court." -- Avenue 06:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Model of .22 rifle
Anyone have a reference telling the type of .22 rifle used by the killer? I once read it was a Ruger 10/22, but I am unable to confirm this. The Ruger 10/22 has a standard detachable 10-round magazine with unconventional external dimensions. See http://www.prestostore.com/cgi-bin/pro08.pl?ref=armedamerica@comcast.net&ct=65380&pd=291544 Petlif 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The gun is a .22 Winchester semi automatic with a home made silencer attached by means of a screw on steel hose clip. The weapon can be seen here with Police Armourer Robert Ngamoki. 10 and 5 round ammo magazines were found at the scene. http://www.nzpaimages.co.nz/preview.php?image_id=63257

More verification of this here... http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/51865/blood-spatter-raises-question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for?
I'm failing to see why he was convicted for the murder? Perhaps there can be another section outlining the evidence that the courts based his conviction on? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * this scoop outline gives a good summary of events and Privy Council decision --Zven 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That link gives the full text of the Privy Council ruling, nothing more or less. They do provide a good review of the case, although it's not exactly brief. I think our article would benefit from adding the main reasons given for the Privy Council finding. -- Avenue 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Prosecution in the case used a rope and its strands as an analogy for their case. It would make sense to use this analogy and these strands as the layout for presentation of the evidence that the courts based his conviction on. For example one of these strands making up the rope of evidence was the gurgling of Laniet that David said he overheard as she lay dying. Another strand was that David admitted wearing his mothers spectacles that weekend which were found broken by the police, one lens was in Stephens room, and the broken frame and the other lens were in the accused's room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.48.157 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

BIAS
Sorry but this article seems to have been infected by the New Zealand Medias ambition to sway the public to believe that David Bain is innocent, This article needs to provide the initial evidence and why he was convicted as well as the defences evidence, not just why the Privy Council quashed David Bain's murder convictions. There needs to be some editing done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.199.208.54 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree the article is incomplete. But the Solicitor-General banned further discussion before we could expand it (see above). I think our choice now is between leaving it essentially as is, or cutting it back substantially (e.g. removing the Evidence section and almost all of the Criminal trial section) so as to not say anything about the details of the case. But IANAL, so I'm not even sure if the latter approach is safe. -- Avenue (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article IS slanted.

The Privy Council recommended Bain stay in jail till the retrial.

The overwhelming EVIDENCE points to David Bains guilt, the defence is going to rely on hearsay and he WILL be convicted again. There is not one shred of EVIDENCE that Robin had anything to do with the killings, no blood, no fingerprints, no bruises, no fibres, nothing.

I think complete removal may be good advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushbutton auto (talk • contribs)

The privy council ruled on a matter of what the judge didn't do rather than what he did. The PC also ordered Bain to stay in custody which surely is a guide to what they indicated would be the likely outcome of a retrial. The pity is all their recommendations were not implemented. Bain on Bail sent the wrong message to the community. Farmer56 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't be so quick to assume malice. Much of the article was written during the "media circus", when information about the Privy Council ruling was more easily available than details of the original trial. Their decision was also probably more interesting to most readers at the time. But I agree that our detailed coverage of the Privy Council findings could now be seen as giving undue weight to evidence that throws doubt on Bain's convictions. After the retrial was announced, we couldn't add any details of the evidence suggesting his guilt without risking being in contempt of court. Hopefully we will be allowed to do so soon.
 * In the meantime, another option might be to split the Privy Council case and findings out into a separate article (although even this might be risky). Would you be in favour of that? I'll tag the section to invite others to comment too. -- Avenue (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the guidelines about altering your own comments. You probably meant well in deleting your comment about other editors' motives, but this sort of thing can make the discussion much harder for others to follow. (Here's a diff showing Pushbutton's original comment, for anyone who needs it.)
 * What are your reasons for advocating complete removal? Do you mean removal of just the Privy Council findings, or the criminal trial descriptions too? -- Avenue (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was in breach. I mean complete removal because of the rules, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I see someone added the FACT that the Privy Council recommended he stay in jail, only to add some flotsam about a cheering crowd, what codswallop, the media circus and a few fanatics. This is exactly what I refer to as slanted. And I see someone is saying you can't allow an EVIDENCE addition because of contempt, what a joke. Seriously this article is in violation of the neutral point of view. Pushbutton auto (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is a fact that there was a cheering crowd at Bain's Bail hearing. Additionally, other facts could be verified to qualify the statements you claim are biased: i.e. that the crowd numbered x no. of people, that the crowd contained a large number of members of the media, etc. If you're concerned about bias, please suggest how we can improve the article. Just wiping it doesn't help anyone. --Lholden (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the amount of detail we provide about the Privy Council findings could be seen as giving them undue weight. So I'm interested to hear what people think about how we could address this, given that the best solution (expanding other parts to match) would violate the Solicitor-General's order. (Contempt of court is not something to take lightly.)
 * But I'm not aware of anything in the article that isn't verifiable. I'm sure there are still many omissions, such as the Privy Council wanting him to remain in custody — thanks for mentioning that. The part about a cheering crowd was not just added — it's been there for over a year. You can see this by clicking the history tab at the top of the article. -- Avenue (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So you forgot (for 2 years) about the Privy Council recommending he stay in jail till the retrial or didn't think that relevant to a balanced article ? TUI .... If the indepth Privy Council findings are giving undue weight because the EVIDENCE FACTS can't be posted to give balance then the findings should be elimanated. As previously stated there is not ONE piece of evidence that anyone other than David BAIN committed these murders, NOT ONE. I will be very interested to see this article when he is a AGAIN convicted. Pushbutton auto (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a relatively minor point, I think, but worth including. I didn't notice it when I first went through their findings (which was before he was bailed). Their wording wasn't entirely clear about how long Bain should remain in custody — until the retrial took place, or until it was decided whether there would be one. Perhaps our text should reflect this ambiguity more closely, although he was released earlier than they said under either interpretation.
 * I don't see anything in our article that would be inappropriate to keep (alongside more balancing information) if he was again convicted. We'd still want to cover the controversy, appeals, etc.
 * I believe we're currently not allowed to discuss specific items of evidence in a public forum like this, so I'm not going to respond to your assertions about the evidence until we can legally discuss that level of detail. I'm not convinced they're that relevant to our editorial decisions anyway. -- Avenue (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know how long the original jury deliberated for?

I note that media reports suggest that the people of Dunedin are more firmly convince that David Bain in guilty, than those further north. This may or may not be significant, but should it be alluded to?JohnC (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not significant or worth covering here, but please link here to such reports so we can assess them.-06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourced material
So what if the sourced material is biased or factually incorrect, can the editor still continually use these as sources ?

Split
A split tag had been placed on the "Privy Council findings" section. There is a need for a split but into something a little more meaningful. "David Bain" and David Bain murder trials or Bain family murders would be my suggestion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose a split. The article is not so long that such is necessary, and any split would be an artificial division of a natural topic.- gadfium 06:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also oppose a split. The tag reflected a disagreement about whether that section gave those findings undue weight, given that there were legal reasons the article couldn't be expanded greatly at the time. Now that no longer applies, and we should just get on with expanding it. I will remove the tag if no one objects. -- Avenue (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, points taken on board. I have removed the split tag. One comment though: splitting is not just about article length - it is also about getting the balance right. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite -- no need for split
This article necessarily grew like Topsy and therefore needs a good edit, something that will prune its size and eliminate irrelevancies. We need to create something that in five years time or whatever will be a faithful encyclopedic report of the Bain saga. I have just rewritten the intro, to hopefully something like how it will look to Wiki visitors in the distant future. I'm willing to help knock this article into shape, but not if there are people who insist on including info that may (or may not) have been somehow important to the trials but which is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. We are not supposed to be some sort of court transcript/record. Anyone want to help? Comments? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are plenty of improvements to be made. The retrial arguments would probably read better if we contrast both sides of each important issue, rather than running through the full list of prosecution and defence positions in turn. Perhaps we should consider alternatives the chronological structure currently in place, too. But I don't see many irrelevancies at present. Can you please indicate what parts of the article you feel aren't relevant?
 * I do think there is some repetition, and some of this can be avoided. For instance, a good summary of the main retrial arguments and evidence could replace the opening statements and also let us cut back the summary of the Privy Council findings substantially. But I think a fair amount of detail will still be necessary. Our article should try to answer natural questions such as: why was he found not guilty in 2009? why was he found guilty in 1995? why did the whole process take so long? and what went wrong?
 * I also think the lead section is currently too short and bland. (I'm not meaning to criticise your changes; this was true of the previous version as well.) Once it addresses the above questions, I think the rest of the article can go into some detail without being too burdensome. -- Avenue (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NZHerald published an article today addressing the first of these questions, which is nearly twice as long as our whole article. It goes into more detail than we'd probably want to, but I think it helps put the size issue into perspective. -- Avenue (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I specified encyclopedic report. O J Simpson's article has four of five paragraphs dealing with his murder trial and subsequent civil trial, two of the most widely pubicised trials in history. Count the pars in the Bain article about the trials involving a guy largely unheard of outside NZ. Couple of dozen. Overkill personified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * O.J. Simpson is known for a few things besides the murder trials, which so the trials take up only 2 of the 15 (sub)sections in his article. A better comparison would be with O. J. Simpson murder case, which is over twice the size of this article. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Avenue (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Either, or
David Bain is innocent according to the definition given in our not guilty article. Either that article needs rewriting, or we remove the following contradicting information from the David Bain article - " A verdict of not guilty does not mean that the accused person is innocent .....". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to the definition given in the first sentence of the acquittal/not guilty article, which says "... an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned ...". IANAL, but I think that could use rewriting - see e.g. Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent, by the Massachusetts Bar Association. Even as it stands, I believe it doesn't really contradict the quote you give from the David Bain article. There is a difference between saying someone is innocent and that their innocence has been formally certified. The caveat "as far as the criminal law is concerned" also seems relevant given that we discuss eligibility for compensation (which follows different rules) in the next section. -- Avenue (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suppression of stories about suppressed evidence?
Some media outlets have published stories about the nature of some of the evidence suppressed from the retrial, which seem to have since been pulled off their websites. I won't go into details of the evidence here, since there may be legal issues surrounding it - here's one report of legal action over recent media coverage. A Google search for "Bain suppressed evidence" currently gives you the gist, and partial copies of the news stories have been posted to various blogs and forums. How should we handle this aspect of the case? I'm tempted to leave it out of the article for now, due to possible legal issues and the current lack of reliable sources. -- Avenue (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the addition of an unsourced section on this (see diff), as I think we should reach a consensus here first. -- Avenue (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court has lifted their suppression order, and I've added details of that evidence to the David_Bain section. The full text of their decision is available here. -- Avenue (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Court of Appeal has lifted theirs, too - see e.g. Bain alibi allegations revealed. The court's summing up is available here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Add evidence from original trial
It would be good to include some of the evidence accepted by the jury that lead to his conviction. Including...


 * David Bain left a bloody palm print on the washing machine
 * David Bain had scratches marks and bruises on his body
 * Wool fibres, matching those of David Bain's jumper, were found under the fingernails of his murdered brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.105.13 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It could be useful to cover the evidence presented in the original trial in more depth, in due course - i.e. after the retrial is finished. But I believe we currently can't do this without violating the Solicitor General's order not to discuss it publicly (see above). I think we are allowed to report on the evidence presented at the retrial, so if any of those points are presented in that forum, I believe we are free to add them. (But I am not a lawyer.) I haven't kept close track lately, but I'm sure the scratch marks and bruises have been mentioned at the retrial. -- Avenue (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Solicitor General's order does not apply to an American website. 123.255.21.42 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's probably a moot point now, but I think it would have been unwise for editors within New Zealand's jurisdiction to have ignored the order. -- Avenue (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Given every fact cited by the original editor came out in court to no avail, that may be true, but Wikipedia has fought challenges from the German government before. And they actually took real action against the organisation, which the New Zealand government will never do, and no Wikipedia.co.nz exists for defenders of information about criminals to abuse. I just wish people didn't raise these imaginary threats. 123.255.21.42 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When I said it was probably now a moot point, I was referring to the timing, not the content. The retrial is over, and there seems to be no real prospect of another one, so the Solicitor-General's warning about influencing the jury shouldn't apply anymore. I'd agree that Wikipedia would probably have been undamaged by any reasonable edits to this article, but individual editors could have been more vulnerable. Anyway, this all seems to be hypothetical now. -- Avenue (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely with Avenue even if it's a largely moot point now. 123.255.21.42 appears to be a NZ IP address possibly one in Christchurch or elsewhere in Canterbury (although from my experience IP geolocations are often not that reliable). Editors often seem to forget that they have liability for anything they do on wikipedia so it's important we remind editors that they do bear a risk. Also please remember for future cases that unless the information is in reliable secondary sources, it generally should not be added to wikipedia. In particular, adding information from primary sources (trial documents for example) is highly discourage in BLPs. If this information was reported at the time of the first trial and the sources are still available, then that would probably be sufficient but information not reported would not be Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After the Trial
If he is found guilty again, I think it right to change the article to say that he DID commit the murders. If he is found not guilty, leaving it as is is best. 125.238.255.239 (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are months before we have to worry about that, although I think phrasing it as "found guilty" or "convicted" would be more acceptable than pretending we know what actually happened. -- Avenue (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Avenue, you definately cannot say that as the court findings are not necessarily correct in every trial. By that logic if he was found not guilty in the retrial we would be able to say the he didn't do it. In general the decision made by a jury is only as good as the evidence available, if the evidence is poor, then there is a higher chance the jury could make an error in judgement. In this case there is now only one person alive who does actually know the truth and that is David Bain, unfortunately forensic evidence was destroyed in both the house fire, and by police before the first appeal which may have been able to conclusively determine the killer in this case. --Zven (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on Bain's innocence?
I'm not sure if we should include a section that basically says yes, David Bain is found not guilty by the jury, but this verdict is controversial among a not insignificant segment of the population. For example, John Roughan, Michael Laws , and Martin Van Benyen are three of the typical examples of current opinions in this country insisting it was David Bain who had committed the crimes. I'm not sure if this borders on defamation since Bain is not guilty legally speaking, but I think we should write something that says the verdict is not universally accepted. --JNZ (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. It needs to be written carefully, to avoid defamation and follow our BLP policy, but now there are multiple post-trial commentaries expressing doubts, we should cover this too. (I think we shouldn't rely too heavily on Laws as a source here, since he is as much a politician as a journalist, but the other two pieces are more sober. See McLeod's recent piece too.) I'll add something in the next couple of days if no one objects or beats me to it. -- Avenue (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevard (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How much weight should be given to peoples opinions on blogs who may or may not be privy to statements and evidence presented in all the trials? Really the issue is about the fact that the evidence cannot conclusively determine the truth, which is what makes the findings from all the court cases controversial. You could just as easily focus on the original police investigation and destruction of evidence, for example, burning down the house, or evidence destroyed by police before the first appeal. --Zven (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion column by a media expert published at the site, if you cared to read past the title. I'm not interested in discussions of how you 'could' be willfully ignorant of the facts. Nevard (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Message on computer
I believe the message on the computer was, i'm sorry that it had to be you, not, sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay. Has there been any dispute over exactly what was typed up on the computer on the day of the killings because I read that and thought, no, I know different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * do you have a reliable source that says this? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I heard a famous radio personality Michael Laws quote that during the debate over who committed the killings (that went over the course of a few days), between Laws and Bains faithful supporter Joe Karam, in the winter of 2010, on RadioLive. I don't know whether those shows have been archived anywhere on the Internet but especially the RadioLive website. So yes and no, I think my source is reliable, but no because it was on the radio. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the article is correct - from memory the exact quote is in the first case. --LJ Holden 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of content
The recent removal of content is excessive. Most of it appears to be well sourced coverage. It appears that sources such as scoop.co.nz have been discuounted when some, such as this one are authoritative. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Garbage, selective pieces of news, not the whole facts. Offender has already been in trouble for his re-editing and now takes the cake with his fawning over Karam. Pushbutton auto (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article, not on other contributors.- gadfium 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo
What about including a photo of Bain...? Offender9000 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculation and opinion
If this article is going to be subject to continual rewrites without facts based on one persons bias, then the offender should be stopped ! Pushbutton auto (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
This whole page needs a rewrite, this bio is not encyclopedic or factual, its a weird love letter. Pushbutton auto (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to make more specific points for any constructive discussion to take place.- gadfium 23:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tags
After starting to read and edit this article it has become clear that there are some major issues with POV's being pushed here. The language used in some sections is loaded - it isn't written in an encyclopaedic manner.

We also need to firm up - is this page just about David Bain - or is it about the Bain family murders? As this alters the content/focus of the article quite substantially. Clarke43 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Content
I read this page from the point of view of someone who's totally unknowledgeable about the topic. I'm from the UK and had never heard about the case until today. It reads as a good referenced description. Any page can be improved but it reads fine to me. Just my point of view. It would be a shame to totally re-write or delete content. Liassic (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. The above comments refer to the state the article was in six months ago; it has been substantially cleaned up and improved since then. I am going to delete the tags at the top of the page which are no longer relevant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Large deletion of content
A large amount of content was deleted in this series of edits. There is now only a small amount about the first trial and a tiny amount about the second trial. Nurg (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In an article about a living person, it seems to me the minutiae of the trials is not particularly relevant. It is the outcome of the trials and the public response to those outcomes which makes an article about David Bain interesting - rather than a re-litigation of the details which are all disputed anyway. Offender9000 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Offender9000 has made a number of changes to NZ crime related articles. He seems to be strongly slanted in favour of the criminals. The changes he has made need to be looked at closely. Tristanb (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Offender is attempting to rewrite history. Pushbutton auto (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Offender (the name says it all) has had his account banned for operating multiple accounts. Serendipity33 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Some material not in cited source
"At his trial the prosecution claimed that David killed his entire family after completing his early morning paper round."

This statement us not consistent with the reference cited. I cannot anything in the cited paragraph even remotely meaning that. Please demonstrate if you can. There are a number of other sentences in the article which bear no resemblance to the cited source. (Serendipity33 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC))


 * You're quite right. It should have said before instead of after completing his morning paper round. Turtletop (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Its good to agree on something. There are a number of ways this page can be improved where the wording is loose. Adjectives, buts etc. (Serendipity33 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC))

I have added in a bit more information on the retrial. Dean Cottle evaded being subpoenaed and then arrested for failing to appear. I have cited as best i can (Otago Daily Times newspaper) but as the quote about his memory failing him was from the pretrial rulings, which I don't think are public, I can't add a (link-able)citation for that. Will a paragraph number and date do? NZgreygoose (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Update; as Turtletop had now taken complete charge of the article and is repeatedly removing material he claims is not cited correctly, so that he can push his 'David is innocent' POV, I am proposing that I add images (that I have made myself) of the relevant material from the Pretrial Rulings, as this material is not online already as far as I can tell. From the Wikipedia commons, the material can then be cited. NZgreygoose (talk)

Seeking consensus
An editor has repeatedly inserted the phrase 'whose lawyers allege' or some variant of it into the first sentence of the Lead. He has even re-inserted it after being asked to 'take it to the Talk page' by User:Gadfium. I am seeking consensus on whether the phrase is appropriate and whether it should remain in the Lead. Should the phrase remain? Please answer 'Retain' or 'Remove' with your reason(s) if you wish. Akld guy (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove as proposer. Bain was found not guilty after a retrial. It matters not one jot what his lawyers or the Justice department might believe about his guilt or innocence. Akld guy (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove. it makes for clunky reading as another reason. The understandable concern is that a casual glancer to the page will derive the immediate impression from the very first sentence, that David Bain did not murder his family. That is unfortunate but we have to live with it I guess. NZgreygoose (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove David Bain was found not guilty. That's why the first sentence should give the immediate impression that he did not murder his family. As far as the justice system is concerned, he was wrongly convicted at the first trial. (See section above titled Wrongfully convicted.) Turtletop (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have now found the talk page. Lets discuss whether on not David Bain was "wrongfully " convicted. There was a case in the USA [which I will link to shortly ] where a soldier was convicted of murdering a woman and her two children and sentenced to death, then two years later he was acquitted. Then a few years later he was convicted again of the same murder and once again sentenced to death. My question is " Was that soldier wrongfully convicted at his first trial? " Mr Maggoo Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Timothy Hennis. Was he wrongfully convicted ar his first trial? Timothy Hennis

A not guilty verdict does not mean the person who has been found not guilty is in fact innocent as some people believe. Take the remarkable story of Timothy Hennis, for example. Timothy Hennis, a 27 year old soldier based at Fort Bragg was convicted in 1986 of murdering of Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters,aged three and five, in nearby Fayetteville in 1985 and sentenced to death. However his lawyers appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the graphic police photos had wrongly influenced the jury to render a guilty verdict and ordered a retrial. At his retrial in 1989 his lawyers attacked many of the prosecutions most damaging accusations one by one. [Ring any bells?] The end result was that Hennis was acquitted. As a free man Hennis re-enlisted in the Army and served a dignified career,eventually retiring in 2004 with the rank of Master Sergeant. He raised two children and and became the scoutmaster of his son's troop. However the prosecution continued to pursue the case. In 2006 vaginal swabs from a rape kit taken from Kathryn Eastburn's body yielded new evidence. DNA testing was an imperfect science in the 1980's and the semen found in Mrs Eastburn's body wasn't pursued as evidence at the first trial. In 2006 it was was found that the DNA from that rape kit was consistent with Hennis's DNA. The sample was 1.2 quadrillion times more likely to be from Hennis than from any other white person in North Carolina. Due to the Constitutional prohibition on double-jeopardy North Carolina could not try Hennis again. But the Army could. A team of military attorneys evaluated the case and the Army decided to pursue it. Hennis was recalled to active duty two years after his retirement and promptly arrested on three counts of murder. The prosecutions case hinged on the DNA result. The jury composed of men and women in uniform rendered a guilty verdict and Hennis was sentenced to death for the second time. He is now in solitary confinement on death row at Fort Leavenworth Military Prison in Kansas awaiting appeal. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The case you are referring to is not related to David Bain. Bain was tried (for the second time) and found not guilty, so he cannot be tried again. I agree, the fact that he was found not guilty at the second trial by 12 jurors doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. But as far as the law is concerned, there was a 'substantial miscarriage of justice' (according to the appeal process which went all the way to the Privy Council in Britain), and he was then found not guilty. The simple logic is (in the eyes of the law) that Bain was 'wrongfully convicted' and cannot be tried again.


 * More to the point. All official documents refer to him as 'wrongfully convicted'. The media refer to him as wrongfully convicted. Citations to media and official documents are used to justify the presence of the statement in wikipedia that Bain was 'wrongfully convicted'.


 * I understand that you are new to wikipedia, but these are the wiki rules. You completely waste everyone's time, including your own by bringing up irrelevant material like this - and on top of that provide no references to it so that others can even check out what you're talking about. Wikipedia is not a chat forum where you can say whatever you like and think that others will believe you. You may get away with that on chat forums but Wikipedia is a serious endeavour in which everything has to be checked and verified by others. It seems to me you need to familiarise yourself with some basic wikipedia editing rules. You might like to begin with this one: WP:Verifiability Turtletop (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct in saying that I am new to Wikipedia but the point I am trying to make is that just because David Bain was acquitted at his retrial does not mean he was wrongfully convicted at his first trial. Hennis was acquitted at his retrial but I don't think anyone can justify saying that he was wrongfully convicted at his trial. As for David Bain not being able to be tried again, my understanding is that he could be but that the Crown decided not to go down that road. I will try to find a reference for that.


 * From what I have read only David Bain's lawyers are alleging he was wrongfully convicted. To prove he was wrongfully convicted David Bain must be found innocent on the balance of probabilities . At this point of time, unless Hon Ian Callinan has come to that conclusion , David Bain has not been found innocent , therefore it cannot be said that he was wrongfully convicted. The official document that was linked to does not confirm your premise that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. His lawyers are saying that he was. So far as I can tell from reading that document , no Justice Minister has agreed with that statement. I accept that no Justice Minister has said that David Bain wasn't wrongfully convicted but that does not mean any of them believe that he was. Perhaps I should contact Amy Adams to see if I can get some clarification on this matter, but obviously not at the moment because Parliament is in recess. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Attn. Turtletop It would appear I should have linked to that article re Timothy Hennis. There are a number of links on Google, here is one of them
 * http://abcnews.go.com/2020/timothy-hennis-guilty-1985-triple-murder-trial/story?id=11652956 Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Magoo wrote: "From what I have read only David Bain's lawyers are alleging he was wrongfully convicted. To prove he was wrongfully convicted David Bain must be found innocent on the balance of probabilities."


 * You seem to be confused about the legal and political issues which are at play in this scenario. There are two separate issues. The first is that from a legal perspective Bain was wrongly convicted. Opinion polls indicate that the vast majority of new Zealanders now accept this to be the case.


 * The second is that in order for the Government to pay him compensation, Bain has to persuade them that he is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Of course he has the cards stacked against him because the Government is able to chuck out judge's reports until they get one that suits them. In other words, this is a political issue not a legal issue.


 * Assuming the new judge, Ian Callinan, concludes that Bain has not proved he is innocent (on the balance of probabilities), the finding of not guilty at his second trial still stands and the original conviction will still be classified as a miscarriage of justice. Because that is a judicial/legal conclusion, not a political one.


 * The point is that Bain's compensation case is a completely separate matter to the finding by the second jury that he is not guilty. He cannot be retried even if he does not receive compensation. Turtletop (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

POV Editing by Serendipity33
This editor appears to be adding material supporting a particular POV. In the process he has also breached WP:COPYVIO by taking large chunks of material directly from source. Turtletop (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * When I first saw this article it appears to fit "the neutrality of this article is disputed" category.


 * My POV is to keep the article neutral and objective.


 * Lets have a look at this section.


 * David Cullen Bain''' (born 27 March 1972) is a New Zealander who was wrongly convicted in May 1995 of the murders of his parents and siblings in Dunedin on 20 June 1994. He spent over 13 years in prison before being acquitted on all charges after a retrial.


 * The word 'wrongly' is not neutral. Many adjectives are not neutral.


 * A more neutral objective statement is
 * David Cullen Bain''' (born 27 March 1972) is a New Zealander who was convicted in May 1995 of the murders of his parents and siblings in Dunedin on 20 June 1994. He spent over 13 years in prison before being acquitted on all charges after a retrial.


 * A person pushing a POV may add the word "wrongly" to acquitted.
 * It is correct to say convicted and acquitted. That is a fact.


 * When I first saw the article then was next to nothing on the first trial and very little on the second. It had been removed by a now banned user who had multiple accounts.


 * If I had paraphrased from the trial transcripts would you be happy?


 * (Serendipity33 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC))


 * Without changing the format of your post, I have indented it to show that you replied to Turtletop. Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it that it is a fact that he was convicted and acquitted. It is also a fact that the Privy Council declared his conviction was a substantial miscarriage of justice. In other words: a mistake was made. He was wrongly convicted. That is also a fact. Turtletop (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In regard to paraphrasing from the original trial transcripts, two points. The first is that 99% of the material you added is the case for the prosecution. Since you didn't add anything about the defence case, you appear to be pushing a POV. Your wish to remove the word 'wrongly' adds to that perception. The second point is that since it has subsequently been proved that the prosecution got it wrong, the material you added is presumably incorrect and, anyway, is no longer relevant. It may have been relevant 20 years ago, but not now and Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to relitigate it.

Basically, the only thing that is particularly relevant from the original trial is the fact that there was a miscarriage of justice - and perhaps some explanation as to how and why that happened.Turtletop (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be a fact the Privy Council declared his conviction was a :substantial miscarriage of justice. A mistake was made is an opinion.
 * He was wrongly convicted is an opinion.
 * Privy council is not infallible.


 * There is so little on the first trial, it could be quite baffling for :a reader to conceive of why the result was what was it was.


 * As for the word 'wrongly' no. De Bono has made a point that adjectives :are often emotional terms. It is not neutral at all.


 * To me your second point is opinion. IMO the logical connections are :weak.
 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to rewrite history either.
 * The Allies won WW2. It does'nt mean WW2 never happened.


 * By all means add the case for the defence in the trial sections.


 * The trial sections (which were in place few years) were obliterated by :a now banned user a few years ago and never replaced. The trials are :part of the story.
 * (Serendipity33 (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC))


 * 'wrongly' was used in the sense that Bain's original conviction was improperly obtained. 'Wrongly' had no bearing on his guilt or innocence. It simply showed that procedures that convicted him were flawed. You have taken the wrong meaning from the word. In an attempt to clarify the situation, I've changed the wording to 'improperly convicted '. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase 'wrongly convicted' has everything to do with his innocence. There was a miscarriage of justice and Bain was subsequently found to be innocent. This is not a matter of opinion. It is what happened. As a result the phrase 'wrongful conviction' is used by the Government on the Beehive website and by the media to describe his original conviction. Please see citations now provided on the main page. Turtletop (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Bain was NOT found innocent. A flawed process in the original trial resulted in a guilty verdict. The appeal process acknowledged that a flawed process took place, and the second trial found that there was sufficient doubt and dellivered a verdict of not guilty. Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. Bain may have committed the murders but is free simply because a guilty verdict was unsafe due to reasonable doubt. The use of 'wrongly convicted', although appearing in official sources as you state, tends to mislead some, such as Serendipity, into believing that the accused was innocent. I think that 'improperly convicted' conveys the sense of 'flawed trial' better than 'wrongly convicted', but if consensus is to change it back to the latter I won't object. Akld guy (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'wrongly' as it was added back in by Turtletop. The first verdict has become controversial only after the fact, just as the second verdict is also controversial. Therefore I suggest historical fact be adhered to. Bain was convicted in 1995. Fact. The article reflects that that verdict was overturned many years later, so I dispute that there is any need to have 'wrongly' in the first part. It is non neutral POV in my opinion. NZgreygoose (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that is a sensible solution. There is no need to categorise the first trial since it's made clear in the second sentence that the retrial overturned the earlier verdict. Akld guy (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "wrongly" is for wont of a better word used wrongly. It inclusion is simply incorrect and rather than replace it, the word should simply be removed.

Irrespective of personal beliefs as to the guilt of Bain Senior or Junior, David Bain was convicted.

The fact that it was overturned does not make the original verdict wrong. It just means that the PC wanted the trial to start again from scratch. Farmer56 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop should not be permitted to continue putting "wrongfully convicted" into this article. It is not his blog ... and his writing is not neutral. The fact remains, David Bain WAS convicted in Dunedin, by a jury of his peers. New Zealand Police are professionally trained to find criminals, and they remain convinced of his guilt. There is some misunderstanding in the mind of Turtletop. An "Application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment" is simply an application. If the government believes he actually had been wrongfully convicted, there would be no need to ask a judge for an opinion. Similarly, an "application to become a police officer" does not mean you are a police officer, or ever will be. Turtletop has been removing items which could be valuable to someone studying the case. It is not up to Turtletop to select what can and cannot be viewed by someone seeking information on this case, as everything should be made available - just like a regular encyclopedia. Garglesaver (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal Aid Joe Karam
I note that Turtletop has removed a reference to the amount of legal aid paid to Joe Karam which was linked to an article by Jock Anderson. His reason was because he considers Anderson to be a gossip columnist. Surely just because Turtletop believes that Anderson is a gossip columnist does not entitle him to remove that reference. The legal Services Agency provided me with all the legal aid costs relating to David Bain together with a breakdown of the legal aid paid to Joe Karam. Does anyone have any objection to me referring to those costs, even though I can't actually link to the letters and emails I received? The way I see it is that if it is good enough to be able for someone to refer to the $7600 paid to Robert Fisher's girlfiend, then I should be able to refer to the amount of legal aid that was paid to Joe Karam seeing as it was over forty times the amount Fisher's girlfriend received. Legal aid. Figures supplied by the Legal Services Agency. David Bain claimed $3,333,495 in legal aid relating to his first trial, Court of Appeal hearings, Privy Council appeal and retrial. This was and is the most expensive legal aid bill in New Zealand's history. It was made up as follows. Original trial and appeals High Court                $149,180 Court of Appeal         $ 101,208 Privy Council             $455,737

Retrial and Appeals High Court               $2,338,810 Court of Appeal             $97,118 Privy Council               $113,847 Supreme Court              $77,595

Joe Karam received $424800 for his work as an investigator, made up of $307664 in fees and $117136 in expenses. He claimed 379 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the Privy Council appeal. He claimed 749 hours at $75 an hour for work related to the retrial. He claimed an additional 2348 hours at $95 an hour for work related to the retrial. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a verifiable reference to the legal aid paid to Joe Karam. Turtletop (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I myself have found two verifiable references, one on Joe Karam's Wikipedia page, so I guess it is OK for me to go ahead and edit David Bain's Wikipedia page quoting either or both of those references. Does anyone have any objections?

Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article currently says $330,000, but the reference cited says it is 'not a final figure'. Given there is a difference of approximately $100,000 dollars between the two alleged amounts, why not find out what is the the final figure and cite that.? Does the OIA information post date the current reference? I see there is some mathematical error in the above too? NZgreygoose (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

greygoose It would appear the final figure was $424480, although the figure I was given was $424800. The figure showing on the David Bain page $330000 does not relate to the "years of work on the case " but just the retrial. When the legal aid paid to Karam for his work done preparing for his submission to the Privy Council is added the figure is $424480 according to Legal Aid Commissioner Nigel Fyfe. I have edited to show the correct figure although as I have already said, the figure I was given was slightly higher, and that was given to me by the Legal Services Agency. So either I was given the incorrect figure or Nigel Fyfe is wrong. I might point out that the figure of $424480 is the same figure that is entered on Joe Karam's Wikipedia page. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on the use of the word "wrongfully"as in wrongfully convicted ? I say that word should not be there, Turtledove says it should be and cites a number of links, none of which appear to give a definitive answer. So what I need to know is how many apart from Turtledove support leaving in that word and how many apart from myself support removing it? Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Maggoo, You cannot change the amount of legal aid paid to Joe Karam by using your own mathematics to figure out what you think it should be. That is called original research. Find and add a reference for your $424,000 figure, otherwise leave things as they are. Akld guy (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. But I do have a source and greygoose had already quoted a source but turtledove deleted it because he said her source was an opinion piece. The figure is sourced to on the Joe Karam Wikipedia page as well. Karam was paid $424,480 by Legal Services for his legal work in support of David Bain. Commissioner Nigel Fyfe approved the payment describing Karam's "unique circumstances" and said his legal assistance to Bain's defence was "exceptional" and the "equivalent to a non-qualified legal executive..."[12 Whats more the $330000 that turtledove has entered was not for Karam's years of service, it only related to the retrial ,when he was paid $75 for the first 749 hours and $95 for the remaining 2348 hours a total of 3097 hours which is about a year and a half. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. This is what turtledove has entered on the David Bain page. including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case.[73 He is fudging. Look at the source. Karam was not paid $330000 for his "years of work on the case " He was paid $330000 as an investigator on work related to the retrial. I would like to know why turtledove is being allowed to get away with this sort of thing. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. Here is the link to that amount $424480. greygoose had linked to that item on the David Bain page but turtledove removed it on the basis that it was an opinion piece. What gives him the right to do that without a consensus? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11325588 Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop. You say that from a legal perspective David Bain was wrongly convicted. Could you please give me examples of what lawyers are saying this, apart from David Bain's lawyers. You say opinion polls opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders accept that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. Could you please link me to a poll where New Zealanders were asked whether or not they believed David Bain was wrongfully convicted.

You are implying that the government chucked out Binnie's report because his conclusion did not suit them. That is only your opinion. The fact is Binnie's report was full of errors some of which I will link to later. It was peer reviewed and found wanting. I agree that whatever conclusion Hon Ian Callinan comes to the not guilty verdict at Bain's retrial will still stand unless of course David Bain decides to confess or else some new evidence is found that proves he was the perpetrator which is about as unlikely as Robin Bain being proved to be the perpetrator. But the possibility exists. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Excerpt from Justice Binnie's report. Binnie report [para 429] “David's evidence is that the sharpness of his vision began to deteriorate at about 30cm[about a foot] but that he could see well enough without glasses to play sports and participate in orienteering which requires the ability to identify markers at considerable distances. There was a video playing at home on the Sunday evening June 19, but he sat close to the television set.

David Bain told Justice Binnie that he didn't need his glasses on the Sunday night prior to watch that video on the Sunday evening because he sat close to the television set. Had Justice Binnie bothered to interview Michael Guest, David Bain's lawyer at the first trial, he would have learnt that Bain had told his lawyer and co-Counsel that he had been wearing the glasses that were found in his room to watch that video. And of course there is plenty of evidence that points to David Bain having worn those glasses that weekend. First of all they were found in his room. Then at trial he said he wore his mother's glasses [and it was a pair of his mother's glasses that was found in his room] when his were unavailable. His glasses were unavailable because he had broken them the previous Thursday when leaning his singing teachers house. Again at trial he said he only wore those glasses for watching TV or going to lectures. He said he was watching a video on the Sunday evening.

The aunt that David Bain was staying with immediately after the killings testified that he had told her [with her daughter present ] that he had been wearing a pair of his mother's glasses that weekend, they weren't perfect he told her, but they got him by. It would appear there can be absolutely no doubt that David Bain had been wearing those glasses that were found in his room. The question he needs to be asked is how the frame of those glasses came to be found damaged in his room on the Monday morning after the killings and how it was that one lens from those same glasses was later found in his brother Stephen's room. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would just like to clarify that I was not the editor whose citation regarding Legal Aid (Jock Anderson was the citation) was removed by Turtletop. I have never edited this article with respect to Legal Aid paid to Joe Karam. I was merely discussing said issue here on Talk, and pointing out that Jock Anderson is not a gossip columist.NZgreygoose (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies greygoose. But the point I am trying to make is that Turtledove had no right to delete that citation on the basis that he considered it to be an opinion piece. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [Indented Mr Maggoo's reply to NZgreygoose by the correct indent level] Akld guy (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Maggoo, I have read the reference that you wish to insert to justify your claim that $424,480 legal aid was paid:
 * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11325588
 * NZgreygoose has just stated that Jock Anderson is not a gossip columnist. That appears to be true. However, that NZ Herald article is headed, "Jock Anderson's Opinion". The problem is that Anderson is expressing his opinions on the page, and more importantly, he is NOT speaking on behalf of the New Zealand Herald. The Herald can disclaim any responsibility for anything Anderson says in the column. Therefore I agree with Turtletop that the reference is not a reliable source and that it should be kept out of the Bain article. As I have said before, your $424,480 may be correct, but you will have to find a better reference than this. Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. Ok, I will try to find a better reference, maybe I will contact Fife and see if he can assist. But as I have already pointed out at least twice turtledove is fudging re the amount paid Karam. This is what I have copied from the David Bain page. "including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his years of work on the case". Joe Karam was paid over $330000 for his work relating to the retrial, not for his years of work on the case. Would you agree to me editing out the words "for his years of work on the case " and entering "for his work relating to the retrial"? Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And Auckland guy, while we are at it, do you believe that turtledove is correct in saying David Bain was wrongfully convicted? I see he hasn't been able to link to anyone who has actually said that, apart from David Bain's lawyers. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At Talk:David Bain above, User:Turtledove gave several examples of links which you say he is unable to give. Either you are not reading what others say or you are deliberately ignoring them. Either way, you are being disruptive. Moriori (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Maggoo, the reference that you are referring to in regard to the over $330,000 paid to Karam is http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577581. It specifically says that $331,593 was paid from April 2007. The appeal was lodged in May, 2007. The retrial took place in mid-June 2009. The announcement (in this Herald report) of the payments to Joe Karam appears to have been made almost immediately after the retrial ended. The Legal Services Agency says he was paid [for services] "both prior to and during the retrial". Therefore I will not object if you change the wording to, "for his work relating to the retrial." But take note: do not attempt to rewrite the subject matter of the reference itself, as you did on a previous occasion. Akld guy (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Maggoo, I don't really care whether the 'wrongfully' stays or goes. Probably it needs to be in the first sentence of the Lead. Its presence in the infobox is a bit overkill, as the retrial sentence immediately follows. There is ample evidence of cites for the term, as per Moriori above. Akld guy (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. Thanks for that. Yes, that is the amount that Karam was paid for his work relating to the retrial Most of it he received for work carried out from work carried out before the retrial started [ I wasn't able to get the actual date that he started because legal aid in his case was paid in blocks of around $20000 a time] He was also paid for work done during the retrial but not for the time that he was actually at the retrial. Re wrongfully. If you would like to read my post again you will see I did not say Turtledove was unable to give links. What I said was that Turtledove cited a number of links, none of which appeared to give a definitive answer. Sure the word wrongfully was in all those links but I don't believe the Ministry of Justice or any Minister of Justice has said that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. David Bain's lawyers are claiming he was but just because they are claiming that doesn't make it so. I take you have no objection to removing that word from the info box so long as I leave it in the first sentence. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to stop beating a dead horse in order to get a quick answer. Leave things as they are for now, open a new section on this page titled 'Consensus - wrongfully' or something similar, and sit back and wait for results. Due to time zone differences and the fact that this is a holiday period with some New Zealanders overseas on vacation, you should wait several days for a result. Akld guy (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland guy. I am not sure how I do that. How about I contact Amy Adams when Parliament returns and ask her if it is the Govenment's position that David Bain was wrongly convicted . If she replies in the negative would you accept that as a valid source?
 * Getting back to that Jock Anderson opinion piece. You say the Herald can disclaim responsibility for anything in that article. But that article has already been linked to on Joe Karam Wikipedia so why do you have a problem with it being linked to on Wikipedia again?
 * Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: contacting Amy Adams, I'm not going to give an answer to a hypothetical question. Whatever has been done on some other article does not set a precedent for what goes here. There may have been a consensus on the Karam page for the inclusion. Two editors, Turtletop and myself have stated that the Anderson opinion column is not a reliable source, and that it should not go into the Bain article. I'm not debating this point with you further. Akld guy (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland guy. So there may have been a consensus for the inclusion of that article on the Joe Karam Wikipedia page?
 * Two editors, greygoose and myself have stated that the Anderson column is a reliable source and two editors have not. So there is no consensus that it is not a reliable source yet you choose to ignore us even though there was a probably a consensus on the Karam Wikipedia page to include it. I would suggest the reason you don't want to debate this point with me is because you know I am right and you are wrong. However I will leave it at that and try to find another source. I will be contacting the Ministry of Justice legal aid section next week as they may be able to assist me. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Best authority on the reliabilty of the Anderson column is Anderson himself, and we already have his opinion. When The Herald canned his column in September Anderson wrote the following -- "....after 68 weekly columns of irreverent fun, frivolity, jolly japes and an occasional fact or two, the hot poker has been wielded by The Paymasters... ". Pray tell how a blog containing a fact only occasionally can be a reliable source. How would you determine between the predominant fiction and occasional fact. Moriori (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the point I am making is if we can't link to that item on David Bain Wikipedia then it shouldn't have been linked to on Joe Karam Wikipedia either. I mean it's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I have no doubt that Fife gave out those figures and they are very close to the figures I obtained. I will try to find out why the difference next week. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You yourself are free to remove the information from the Joe Karam article, and the Anderson blog source. Moriori (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * comment from Jock Anderson today "I resist responding to anonymous claims, when they come from partisan people who either don't know or deny the facts...What I can tell you is that a story done by Rod Vaughan in NBR a couple of years back about Karam's legal aid payments totalling just over $400,000 was 100% accurate and confirmed by legal aid services, who provided the figures...People should read or link to Rod's story for a clear and accurate picture...You can use this comment under my name if you like...Cheers Jock Anderson" NZgreygoose (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop I notice that on another editors talk page you have linked a website that contains defamatory material. In fact the actual article you have linked to is probably defamatory in itself. Nostalgia had stated that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? has defamatory material in it but doesn't say what that defamatory material is probably because there isn't any. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Moriori Don't I have to obtain a consensus before I do that ? Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Turtletop. Carrying on from where I left off re that Nostalgia blog you linked to. Nostalgia also says that book has been banned. That is not correct. The facts of the matter are as follows Two bookshops were selling that book. Bookshop A were told by a David Bain supporter that the book had referred to a defamatory website, namely Counterspin. They then withdrew the book and asked the author to have it legally vetted and once that was done, they would start selling it again. The author decided that the cost of having it vetted would be too great, given the number of copies that were printed, so Bookshop A returned the unsold books and paid the author for the sold books. As it happens at the time that book was published all the defamatory material had been removed from Counterspin and that website is still up and running today. Re bookshop B .Message to follow.

Wrongfully convicted
I have started a new section to try and resolve concerns about the term wrongfully convicted - and added it back into the first sentence. From a legal perspective the word 'wrongfully' means there was a miscarriage of justice - as determined by the Privy Council. It is the term used by the Minister of Justice Amy Adams in a memorandum she wrote for Cabinet about the case. See : DAVID BAIN'S APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT.

It is the wording used by former Ministier of Justice, Judith Collins, on the Ministry of Justice website here: "Minister Collins has released the respective reports of Justice Binnie and Robert Fisher QC, on David Bain's application for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment."

Prior to Bain's acquittal, in 2006 High Court judge Sir Thomas Thorp used the term 'wrongful convictions' for cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice. See Up to 20 wrongly in jail says judge

It is the wording used by the media to describe the case.

NZ Herald: David Bain wrongful conviction report ongoing

TVNZ: David Bain compensation: The story so far

TV3: David Bain compensation case resumes

Even bloggers like WhaleOil use the term. See his coverage here: David Bain compensation report a long time coming

In other words, the term wrongfully convicted is both in official and common usage for miscarriage of justice cases. It makes no difference whether wiki editors think the Privy Council or the second jury got it right or not. Legally, a miscarriage of justice occurred and Bain has been found not guilty. In the eyes of the law, he was wrongfully convicted. These are the current facts. They may change in the future. But as matters currently stand, David Bain was wrongfully convicted. The first sentence on this page needs to reflect this as it sets the tone for the rest of the article - which should be in the Category:People wrongfully convicted of murder (Turtletop) 02:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Turtletop (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * david bain was not wrongly convicted. an "application for compensation for wrongful conviction" does not mean there was wrongful conviction. it is simply an application, yet to be decided by cabinet. just as an "application to be a police officer" does not mean you are a police officer. The Government do not see it as wrongful at all - else he would have received compensation by now - and have asked for advice on the matter from Ian Callinan. This link from Government says "David Bain was convicted in 1995 of murdering five members of his family in Dunedin."  Wikipedia needs to be factual, and the fact is David Bain WAS convicted in Dunedin. Details of subsequent events can be detailed further into the article. Garglesaver (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * David Bain was convicted in 1995 of murdering his family in Dunedin. I requested the the wrongfully be removed after twice removing it myself [and which I received a warning for, I might add ], but to no avail. We have to have a consensus, I was told. Do not remove that word again without a consensus or you will be banned was the message I was given. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of consensus. It is a matter of legal fact. An application to Government for compensation (based on wrongful conviction) is an application for compensation. It is not an application that the Government agree or declare there was a wrongful conviction - and then pay compensation. The wrongful conviction has already been established by the Privy Council (which declared the first trail was a substantial miscarriage of justice) and the jury at the second trial which found him not guilty. The Government has no say in whether or not he was wrongfully convicted. They decide whether to pay Bain compensation - which is a political decision not a legal one. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Turtletop It is not a legal fact that David Bain was wrongfully convicted. Please link me to any lawyer who has ever said that. The wrongful conviction was not established by the Privy Council or by the jury at the second trial [and one of those jury members has already explained that the reason the jury found David Bain not guilty was because the did not believe the Prosecution had proved that he was.] That juror went on to say that she did not want David Bain to receive any compensation. In fact one could say that David Bain was rightfully convicted and wrongfully acquitted. If the Hon Ian Callinan finds that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities then you might have a case for saying he was wrongfully convicted. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a question. It so happens I have a copy of David Bain's Wikipedia page circa 2010. The word wrongfully does not appear. What I would like to know is who inserted that word and did the person who did that obtain a consensus to make that addition. If that person, [and I would lay odds that it was Turtletop ] did not obtain a consensus to add that word then could I suggest that that word be removed until such time as he obtains a consensus to insert it. I mean if I have to obtain a consensus to remove that word then surely the person who inserted it should have had to obtain a consensus to insert it in the first place. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland guy. I know you don't want to discuss the word wrongfully anymore because in your opinion it is like flogging a dead horse. With all due respect I don't believe this matter is a dead horse at all, in fact it would appear this particular horse is very much alive and kicking. The way I see it someone, most probably Turtletop, has inserted the word wrongfully when he did not have a consensus to do that. In fact, on reading this page he appears to be about the only editor who believes that word should be there. I would suggest that word be removed until he has received a consensus to insert it. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr Magoo. Turtletop is misusing wikipedia as his personal Blog. There is no consensus on the insertion of the word "wrongfully" - it is untrue, and inflammatory. The Privy council ordered "David Bain remain in custody until a retrial" (nb. not released), and they made it clear they were "not ruling on David's guilt or innocence" and that a new trial "might come to the same conclusion as the original one". The POV Turtletop is attempting to impart is one of David Bain's "innocence" - and that is not the case . This is the way the Government sees it.  . Turtletops POV threatens wikipedias credibility. Garglesaver (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a message I was sent on my talk page by Gadfium. "Your edits are in conflict with those of several others, and you are not contributing to the discussion at Talk:David Bain. You are Edit warring and your editing is becoming disruptive. If you continue in this matter, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit the article again without gaining a consensus on the talk page."


 * I would suggest it is not me that is being disruptive, but that it is Turtletop that is being disruptive. Also, for some unknown reason, it appears he is being allowed to edit without gaining a consensus on the talk page, whereas I have been told that I cannot. There is something rotten in the state of Wikipedia. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is from one of the links Turtletop provided. The New Zealand Government is still awaiting the conclusions of an independent report looking at whether David Bain should be compensated for wrongful conviction. Yes, the Government is looking at whether David Bain should be compensated for wrongful conviction because that is what his lawyers are asking them to do. It does not mean that the Government believe he was wrongfully convicted. If they believed that then they would have just paid him out without the need for any independent report. There are, after all, a number of lawyers in cabinet who could have made that decision without requiring an independent report, had they believed David Bain had been wrongfully convicted. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is from another link that Turtletop provided. Hon Ian Callinan AC QC, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, was hired in March to conduct a fresh inquiry into Mr Bain's claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Note the words " into David Bain's claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment" . He is claiming he was wrongfully convicted. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Contentious edits December 2015 - January 2016 and ongoing
There have been a large number of contentious edits beginning in December 2015 and continuing as I write in January 2016. For those who are wondering why, apparently there was a discussion on a Facebook page by those who have strong opinions and/or have written books on the topic of the Bain murders. When it was mentioned on the Facebook page that there were inaccuracies in Wikipedia's David Bain article, the disputes spilled over into the article. Four usernames have been involved. Akld guy (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This needs to be reported to an administrator. Turtletop (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why, and on what grounds? I didn't say anyone had done anything wrong. I simply recorded what I have been told in a private email, explaining why the page, after being stable for a considerable time, has been subject to contentious editing in the past month. Akld guy (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because meatpuppetry is not allowed. WP:Meatpuppetry "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." This is what your comments about Facebook suggest have been going on. Turtletop (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say that any editors colluded. In fact, they all seem to have different, highly polarized opinions about how the David Bain page should read. So this is probably not meatpuppetry. If a group of people are discussing an issue on some other medium, and they each decide to edit a Wikipedia article on the same topic, there's nothing wrong. Meatpuppetry is when an editor enlists the help of another to back him up by enforcing edits he wants retained or deleted, eg. by reverting on his behalf so that he doesn't reach 3RR. Akld guy (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just having a re-read of the article as it now stands and some sections are really poor, and very non-neutral POV. Family background is one, and section on Judith Collin's dealing with Binnie report is another. e.g. The family backgound section has a lot from Dean Cottle. He says he was her friend, and that she told him she was a prostitute. According to Police view (and other evidence)Dean Cottle was her pimp, not her friend. He owned the phone she used to advertise as a prostitute, and this is how he entered the picture in the first place. Evidence given at the retrial supports this, and not that they were friends. Yet he is being used to pad out this section, as if he can be relied on to be telling the truth. "A teacher revealed".? The teacher was revealing nothing more than that Laniet was prone to telling stories that could not be verified, and yet it is put into the article as if she really did have a baby and was raped. Neither is true, as far as anyone can establish to this day. The Bains actually were quite an interesting family with many accomplishments among them, and this is not reflected in the section; it is written to push the point of view that Robin was a depressed failure and other myths. If anyone wants a full overview of their entire family lives up to the deaths (from many more reliable sources that the ones given here) then 'The Mask Of Sanity' is the book to read. This section reflects no more than the defense party line, as it stands. Ditto the Collins section. It is well known how the defense feel about Collins, but she had support in her strong stance from many quarters. Of course this is not 'allowed' to be included in a pro-Bain spin piece is it? Again the section reflects the usual party line from the defense. NZgreygoose (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now made a number of edits trying to make it both more accurate and less POV. First Trial; the lounge was not downstairs. There were two paragraphs in this section which actually pertained to the 2007 Privy Council decision, so I have removed them. I have cited the Dean Cottle ruling number 8, (its'in McNeish book) and added in that this evidence was suppressed, as its later un-suppression by media outlets is part of the story. I hope to get that part in once I can research it. The other edits were small, and related to POV words/phrases used. NZgreygoose (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty pathetic that Turtletop has been allowed to ride roughshod over this article since November. His editing is NOT neutral POV. Everything he accuses others of doing, he is at least as guilty of himself. Who appointed HIM arbiter of what is 'relevant', 'reliable', 'fictitious' and so on? Himself, that is who. He is now working hard to get other editors on the article banned, so he can continue to fill it with his Pro-Karam, Pro-Bain spin. I am glad the article is now semi-protected. I also point out that Turtletop is a one purpose account. Wiki admins should check out the blog he linked to here as an outstanding example of his mindset, and bias. (Though now that I have posted this, he will probably take it offline to hide it). Wiki admins should analyse Turtletop's multiple edits since November, if they want to see non-neutral POV editing par excellence.NZgreygoose (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Garglesaver
Garglesaver has deleted the word 'Wrongly' before the word convicted - three times in the last few hours. He has now deleted other material he disagrees with despite it being backed up by reliable citations. This is edit warring and disruptive behaviour. Turtletop (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Garglesaver was blocked for 1 week at 07:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland guy.

Do not let yourself be bullied by Turtletop. Turtletop inserted the word wrongly without obtaining a consensus. That is disruptive behaviour. The source he has cited does not support the use of that word. David Bain is claiming he was wrongly convicted. And I am not the only comenter that has made that same point.
 * Turtletop is not seeking consensus. He is treating this as his personal blog, censoring others, promoting his own (extremist) point of view, which is inconsistent with the spirit of wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to be seen as neutral, not biased. Even small concessions by Akld guy, regarding controversial wording in the infobox, have been unilaterally 'overruled' by turtletop. Turtletop is out of control and needs to be stopped. Garglesaver (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And may I add that you don't seem to be able to make up your mind on the use of that word.
 * @Serendipity33: 'wrongly' was used in the sense that Bain's original conviction was improperly obtained. 'Wrongly' had no bearing on his guilt or innocence. It simply showed that procedures that convicted him were flawed. You have taken the wrong meaning from the word. In an attempt to clarify the situation, I've changed the wording to 'improperly convicted '. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind you I don't agree with improperly either and you would not have obtained a consensus to use that word. So here you are, telling us we must have a consensus when you yourself didn't have one and nor did Turtletop when he inserted the word wrongly.

How about a bit of consistency here, or is that too much to ask? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Maggoo, are those remarks addressed to me? It's hard to tell because you seem incapable of using the correct indent. It appears that you're accusing me of blocking Garglesaver, and therefore not being consistent. I wasn't the one who blocked him, as you could have seen if you'd clicked on User:Garglesaver's name. I merely reported the fact. Akld guy (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [A question asked here by Mr Maggoo copied & pasted into the 'Michael Guest email' section above, where it is appropriate.] Akld guy (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Auckland Guy

Just testing. Is this the correct procedure that I should be using in order for you to understand that I am replying to you. I would have thought that by entering Auckland guy before I started my message it would have been obvious who it was addressed to but apparently not. I mean I am in my eighties but even I would have understood who that message was for. My apologies about saying it was you who Turtletop was bullying, apparently it was somebody else. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not usual to address another editor by name, unless there's a real risk of confusion, such as when addressing two or more editors in the one post. The preferred way to show who you're addressing is to indent one colon character to the right of their post. That shows that it's that post, and thus that editor, who is being addressed. Now, I used two colons to make this post, so if you want to reply to it, you should use 3 colons. When signing your name with the tildes characters (aka flags ~), don't hit the Enter key to start a new line. It's sufficient to simply add your four tildes to the end of your sentence. Akld guy (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I have got the hang of the tildes bit, didn't realise that I shouldn't have started a new line, I guess that is why my name comes up twice sometimes. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Inconsistent monitoring There has been considerable discussion over the use of the word wrongfully over the past few days. There would have been no need for this if the monitoring had been consistent. When I removed that word I was given a warning. "Your edits are in conflict with those of several others, and you are not contributing to the discussion at Talk:David Bain. You are Edit warring and your editing is becoming disruptive. If you continue in this matter, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not edit the article again without gaining a consensus on the talk page.-gadfium 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)"

Garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word. I have been told I need to get a consensus to remove that word, garglesaver has been blocked for a week for removing that word and yet Turtletop never got a consensus to insert that word in the first place. A monitor needs to be consistent, otherwise he/she opens himself/herself up to claims of biased monitoring. The discussion re the word wrongfully would probably never have occurred in the first place if monitors had been consistent because I very much doubt that Turtletop would have obtained a consensus to include it. I personally do not believe that everyone needs to get a consensus to edit so long as they are able to cite a valid source and providing that source backs up their edit. Turtletop has entered a source as regards the word wrongfully but that source only relates to David Bain claiming he was wrongfully convicted so in that particular instance that source is irrelevant. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of Turtledove citing an irrelevant reference. He is trying to mislead readers of the David Bain Wikipedia page into believing that David Bain had no motive for killing his family. From his citing. "The question of motive was well canvassed before the jury and it was explained that the prosecution has a duty to prove intent in a criminal case,but not motive. Mr Karam still thinks there was an obligation on the prosecution to show a convincing reason for the killings before David should have been charged or convicted. In his closing address to the jury, Mr Wright, the Crown Solicitor, said "...you've heard evidence from the Crown indicating that the accused is a disturbed young man. In the weeks prior to 20th of June his behaviour was bizarre. It is not my job to speculate on this. The accused's reasons, his motivation, are irreleval1t.,,373 In his summing up, Justice Williamson said that the Crown had told the jury "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation"" In fact in his closing address at the first trial the Prosecutor did suggest a motive and I quote. There is something of a grudge against the father. He was an obstacle. Again and again, like an obsession. Building the house was necessary to keep them together, otherwise the dream of the sanctuary would collapse. This is his story. Otherwise mum might go off and live in a home ownership unit with Stephen, dad would be at Taieri Beach with Laniet , Arawa might go flatting. If you think about it,it is unreal. Because what he wanted was to inherit. [User talk:Mr Maggoo|talk]]) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop linking to a defamatory website.
Editors should be aware that Turtletop has linked to the double killer Brian McDonald's Nostalgia website which contains defamatory material i.e. McDonald has referred to male members of the Justice for Robin Bain group by name and called them pedophiles, he has referred to one female member of the same group by name and called her the town bike, he has referred to three other female members of the group by name and called them the three witches. And one could say the page that is actually on display is defamatory in itself as he is saying that the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit? https://petesnewhangout.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/the-bain-killings-book-review/ is defamatory when the author has never received any complaints about defamation and he also says that book was banned from bookshops when in actual fact one bookshop withdrew it from sale because it had not been legally vetted and the other bookshop that was selling that book withdrew it from sale because the manager felt she should remove it on receipt of an email from a David Bain supporter to the effect that the writer had breached a name suppression order. Once she received advice from the writer's lawyer that no name suppression order had been breached and that the email was sent out of malice the book was put back on the shelves for sale again.Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that Turtletop has now taken it upon himself to edit comments I have made on David Bain Talk. What gives him the right to think he is entitled to do that ? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Open source character assassination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-castle/wikipedia-deepak-chopra-o_b_8449394.htmlMr Maggoo (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael Guest email
[New section created for the question asked by Mr Maggoo] Akld guy (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Here is something else I would like to discuss. I had entered a paragraph on DB Wikipedia re the email Michael Guest sent to Judith Collins. It was removed no doubt because I didn't enter a reference. The only place that I can find that article on the internet is on the Counterspin website. Would it be in order for me to use that website as a reference? I believe that email to be of the utmost importance because in it Michael Guest says that Mr Bain specifically lied about wearing the glasses the night before the killings. That email was obtained via an Official Information request, though not by me. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We have no way of knowing which quote from the Counterspin website you're talking about. Please have some respect for the editors here. Does the Counterspin website attribute the email contents to a valid source? If so, use that source. If not, post the url for the quote here and we will assess it. And please, try to learn the basics of Wikipedia indenting and starting a new section for a new topic. I've been doing a lot of that for you. Akld guy (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Auckland guy. That Counterspin website is one of the external links on the main page. Here is that email in full, although I wasn't intending to put up the full email, just a couple of sentences from it.


 * [Full quote of the email removed by User:Akld guy.]
 * I asked you to post the url, so that anyone interested can go to it and see it for themselves, in context. I did not ask you to post the email, and you are not going to be permitted to in effect make a statement on this page that has not yet been determined to be from a reliable source. Post the url. Akld guy (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Url??? Do you mean the link at the top of the page? In this instance there was no link.

Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this might be what you want. I got this by going through google. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/forum/page-3613Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the problem with that link is that you get the comments as well. Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have managed to find another link to that email and it is from a reliable source. I would have liked to copy and paste the actual email and Judith Collins reply but I thought if I did that you still might dispute the source as being unreliable so I have given you the whole shooting box. http://www.scribd.com/doc/118519382/Truth-OIA-response-from-Justice-Minister Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still have not received a reply as to whether or not I can use the above link as a source for opening a paragraph on the David Bain Wikipedia page relating to the email sent by Michael Guest to Judith Collins where he states that David Bain lied about the glasses and that he is not innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry. Not a word I am familiar with. I see that Turtledove has wrongfully [now where have I seen that word before] accused me of sockpuppetry. He reckons I am am four different people. Now that he has been proved wrong after an investigation into the matter was carried out could I suggest he issues apology to all those he mentioned? But I won't hold my breathe waiting for it and I would advise those other comenters he mentioned not to hold their collective breaths either. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I commented on some remarks made by Turtledove on another editors talk page re the book The Bain Killings Whodunnit and I quote.

His self-published book was pulled from the two bookstores in New Zealand that agreed to stock it after receiving advice that it was a highly defamatory work that would never have been published other than by a self publisher.End quote.


 * As I said yesterday there is nothing defamatory in that book and I would suggest that it is highly defamatory of Turtletop to say that there was. Furthermore neither of the two bookshops pulled that book from their stores because they received advice that it was highly defamatory. Bookshop A stopped selling that book because a David Bain supporter told them that the book had referred to a defamatory website [which, as I explained yesterday ,was not correct] and refused to sell any more copies until the author had had it legally vetted. The author was advised that could cost him up to $10000 so he decided not to have it vetted and asked for the unsold copies be returned, which was done.

Bookshop B stopped selling that book because they had received an email from a David Bain supporter using the name Grant Hargreaves telling them that the author had breached a name suppression order. The author retained a lawyer to look into the matter and he was able to confirm that there was no name suppression breach. Bookshop B was advised and they put that book back on the shelves again. Then the author's lawyer sent an email letter to Grant Hargreaves to ask him for an explanation but by that time Hargreaves had disabled that email address. Then the author contacted a private investigator in an effort to track down the elusive Grant Hargreaves. He was able to confirm there was no such person and also he was able to find out the name and address of the sender of that email. That person has been sent a letter from the author's lawyer asking him to reimburse the author for any costs and inconvenience caused to the author. To date there has been no response. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question. Am I allowed to copy and paste from the retrial transcript or is someone going to tell me that I can't because it is not a reliable source? Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of whether the trial transcript is a reliable source. It is. The question is whether the link you provide is to a reliable source of that transcript. If you quote, and the link is to some wacky opinion piece on some blog, it will be rejected, because nobody knows whether the blog owner has tampered with the content. Link to a reliable source. Akld guy (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland guy. Thanks. I actually have the retrial transcript on my computer, and I think it will be pretty obvious that I am copying and pasting from it when I use it as a link. I haven't tampered with it, in fact I don't believe it can be edited in any way, shape or form. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an example. Q. Did you work with Mr Bain on a daily basis? 16890. Yes I did yeah. Q. What was your impression of both as a person and his teaching? 16891. Well, I thought he was a lovely man, different, he – we both had different ways of teaching.
 * That is an excerpt from the testimony of Robin Bain's assistant teacher who worked with him up until his death. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * [The following question copied & pasted into this section from the 'Disruptive editing by Garglesaver' section (below). Reason: inappropriate in that section.] Akld guy (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Auckland Guy. I haven't received a reply from you let re citing that email Michael Guest sent to Judith Collins re David Bain not being innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor here, and I have no more authority than any other. Others are free to comment and I have waited to see whether they would. You have already stated above, "The only place that I can find that article on the internet is on the Counterspin website." That doesn't look good, because I have already told you that blogs and POV sites are not reliable sources. We have no way of knowing whether the owners of such sites have tampered with the contents of stuff they're quoting, or have even made it up out of thin air. Point to a reliable source please, or it goes no further. Akld guy (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * After I made that comment I found a Ministry of Justice site. I don't know what you mean by POV sites, is that Ministry of Justice site a POV site? Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to refresh your memory this is the site I am referring to.
 * http://www.scribd.com/doc/118519382/Truth-OIA-response-from-Justice-Minister Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is not a Ministry of Justice site. It appears to be an archive of content that may have appeared on the New Zealand Truth newspaper site, if Truth had a site (I don't know whether it did or not). I base that on the Truth logo and Cam Slater's byline at the top of the page. Truth was a tabloid newspaper that ceased publishing in 2013, and Cameron Slater was its final editor. In view of the likelihood that your reference is going to be an archive of a tabloid newspaper (it's described as tabloid in its Wikipedia article), my opinion is that it's not a reliable source. But you can try adding your edit and citing that page and standing back for other editors' consensus. Akld guy (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Do you really believe that Cameron Slater has edited that email, or that letter from Collins in reply, or that letter from Binnie?

Re editing. I see that page has basically been closed down so I won't try to do what you are suggesting at this time. In the meantime I will contact Cameron Slater and link to your comment and see what he has to say about the matter. Mr Maggoo (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have found another link that refers to extracts from that email and is a reliable source. It should do the trick . I will hold off contacting Slater until I hear back from you.
 * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10856832Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your threat of contacting Mr Slater is not constructive to the David Bain article. It could be read as a form of intimidation. Akld guy (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The NZ Herald is of course a reliable source. I suggest you add your edit into the David Bain article. I have no idea whether the Herald link backs up what you intend to say. Akld guy (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it does back up the points I would like to make. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The Herald article states that Michael Guest used to be a lawyer but was struck off for lying in 2001. In other words, he is not a reliable source. Turtletop (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Michael Guest is not a reliable source then neither is Dean Cottle of whom Justice Williamson said, in his ruling # 8 at the first trial and I quote " I conclude that his evidence would not be reasonably safe or reliable. I do not believe him " .On the basis of that ruling all links to Dean Cottle should be removed from the main page. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Auckland guy. I see that books can be cited as a link. In that case can I cite The Bain Killings Whodunnit ? as a source. That Michael Guest email is in that book. The problem with that NZ Herald article is that there is quite a bit of extraneous material on it whereas in Sharp's book it is all on the one page. Also there are excerpts from the retrial in that book which I could cite, rather than use the retrial transcript. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You yourself are the author and self-publisher of 'The Bain Killings Whodunnit', are you not? You outed yourself publicly on my Talk page, but didn't sign the post. The diff is here, where it can clearly be seen that it was you who made the post. You are not permitted to cite your own work: see here. Akld guy (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might add that you are being disingenuous by referring to the book as "Sharp's". You wrote and published the book under a pseudonym, as you stated on my Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you I used my birth name because I did not want to any of my family to be contacted by irrational David Bain supporters and you replied that you understood my concern. But that's OK, I will cite that link from the N Z Herald as you said I could.
 * I see Turtledove is saying that I can't quote Michael Guest because he was struck off, as if him being struck off has anything to do with David Bain telling him he had been wearing those all important glasses on the Sunday night prior. Work that one out.
 * Also. unless I have missed it, I don't think I have had a definitive answer as to whether or not I can site the retrial transcript as a source. Your answer please. Mr Maggoo (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I accepted your reason for authoring your book under a pseudonym in order to avoid the possibility of harassment, but it's another matter entirely to disingenuously refer on this page to "Sharp's book" when it is your own. You have had a definitive answer as to the retrial transcript, and it is this as told to you by me above: It's not a question of whether the trial transcript is a reliable source. It is. The question is whether the link you provide is to a reliable source of that transcript. If you quote, and the link is to some wacky opinion piece on some blog, it will be rejected, because nobody knows whether the blog owner has tampered with the content. Link to a reliable source. Akld guy (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * [Indented by Akld guy] And I have already told you I have the retrial transcript on my computer and I have even cited from that transcript as an example. So I will not be quoting from some wacky opinion piece I will be copying and pasting from the genuine article and using that as a source. So once again I ask you is it OK for me to quote from the retrial transcript, seeing as I have it on my computer? Or are you going to accuse me of editing it?
 * Also, I resent you insinuating that I was being disingenuous by referring to Sharpe's book when it was my own. I had become aware that books could be used as a reference but I was unaware that I couldn't quote from my own book. I wasn't being disingenuous at all, it was simply that I hadn't read all the rules. I always refer to that book as Michael Sharp's book. I would suggest you might like to consider apologising to me now that I have made you aware of the true circumstances. Mr Maggoo (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr Maggoo, I have no doubt that you have an authentic copy of the retrial transcript in your computer. I have no doubt that you would copy & paste a faithful version into the DB article. But the requirement for a reliable source has been explained to you so many times that I have now come to the conclusion that you are trolling on this page in order to make yourself the centre of attention. Good day to you. Akld guy (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

And you would be wrong. I am not trolling this page. I have told you I have a copy of the retrial transcript. Do you require me to link you to that transcript to prove to you that it is reliable. The only problem with me doing that is that many other people are going to see the complete transcript which is something I would rather not happen. Of course I could link you to the transcript and then remove that link after you have had a chance to have a quick look at it so you can see for yourself that it is really the retrial transcript, all 3000 odd pages of it. Might be 4000 odd, can't remember off the top of my head. Alternatively I could copy and paste the first page. I resent your insinuation that I am trolling this page, when I am only trying to get a satisfactory answer. So far as I am concerned the retrial transcript is a reliable source, in fact there could not be a more reliable source. So that's two apologies you owe me but I won't hold my breath waiting for either of them. Good night to you. Mr Maggoo (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest POV Batch of edits by Turtletop
[Moved this section down the page so that it appears in chronological order, that is, under "Wrongfully convicted".] Akld guy (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Turtletop's claim that he edited the section on Cottle (see Second Trial) on a pretext about citations, is spurious. I have checked all the citations numerous times, and the links are still live and accurate. The only one that is not a website link is the material from the Pretrial Rulings. In that one instance I have given a full reference, being document title, date, paragraph number. I have added the paragraph back in and am happy to argue for the significance of the failure of Cottle to testify at the second trial here if need be. I suggest that Turtletop click the citations - there are 5 in that one small section - and actually read the articles. NZgreygoose (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Even if you manage to create a verifiable link, the information will be deleted if it is not relevant. See WP:Relevance which says "If a fact is not relevant to the topic of the article, it should not be mentioned in that article." Once you have created a genuine link to a verifiable document, you will then need to explain on the talk page why you think this material about Cottle is relevant. He didn't turn up to the trial. So what? What does that prove? Once again, you will need to provide a verifiable link to whatever you think it proves. Editors' personal opinions are not acceptable in wiki articles. Turtletop (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not my personal opinion that Cottle did not turn up and testify at the retrial, it is a historical fact. His on-again-off-again relevance to Bain apologists who have been most carefully selective about what information comes out, or doesn't come out, about him is interesting. He's obviously a very sensitive issue to you, but despite that, you are happy to quote him from 20 years ago, extensively, in your new Second Trial section. The relevance of the various 'players' in the Bain saga should be able to be determined with a long view, and within the broad sweep of the article, which is being written for posterity, or historical purposes. History will judge Cottle as having been very significant in the Bain Case Big Picture is my estimate. James MacNeish was writing that 'history' was being made, with respect to the Cottle revelations and sensationalist media reporting at the time, which gave the initial impetus to the whole 'Bain is Innocent' movement, in his book. And even in 2009 the Bain Defense was relying on Cottle's 1994 and 1995 statements. The judge was asked to read them out to the Jury in 2009 as I recall. But Cottle refused to appear in Court (history repeating from the first Trial) and be cross examined, or challenged, on his statements. In the same year he was telling media he thought that David Bain was guilty, and that was what he would say if forced to testify. His memory failed him before the first judge, and his memory failed him again in 2009. That should all be taken into consideration in the long view, in my opinion. You have decimated this article and will continue to do so, based on your previous track record, so I will leave you to do your important work in shaping history to your (and Karam's) ends.NZgreygoose (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You missed the point - and didn't answer my question. I know Cottle didn't turn up. The article says he didn't turn up. But you wanted to include this sentence: "Cottle advised the Bain defense team that he would not testify at the retrial, and that if he were to be subpoenaed to do so, his "memory will have failed" him." Despite repeated requests, you failed to provide a source or citation for this statement. What would including this sentence add to our understanding of the paragraph - other than that he didn't turn up? Why is it relevant? You need to stop waffling and be specific - and you need to provide a citation which backs up what you are saying. See WP:Relevance Turtletop (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The paragraph I wrote on Cottle, for which I have now obtained actual images of one of the (real)citations - against your repeated accusations that said citations were 'fictitious', was not intended to "add to our understanding of the paragraph"; rather, it was intended to add to our understanding of the entire article, or the 'Big Picture' I have referred to above, of the Bain case over 21 years. It may suit your purposes to isolate and cherry pick information about Cottle, but that is denying the uninformed reader the chanced to form an overview of all developments in this case. My original paragraph under Retrial, made sense, it was relevant to the Bain matter as a 21 year whole, and it was cited with 5 actual, real, reliable citations. Now it is gone. Yet you are relying on Cottle's early statements to bolster you account in several places in the article, while wanting the fact that he refused not once but twice to stand by his statements in any way, to conveniently disappear from the historical record. You are well aware that the Cottle failure to appear a second time was, according to him, a Defense ruse, or ploy, and his father expressed the same view in one of my citations being the Otago Daily Times.The Crown was denied the opportunity to challenge Cottle on the stand, and this would have been a low point for the Defense if it had been allowed to occur. As a result of his skipping the country, he was not questioned on his memory failure covering 1995 to 2009, and nor was he questioned about blackmailing Laniet, being her pimp, and asking for payment to appear at the first trial. The question of his reliability, and thence the reliability of his sworn words, still being used by you as it suits, is therefore called entirely into doubt. You would like to have it both ways on Cottle, but I would submit that it is unreasonable for you to expect to go to your lengths to hide half the picture. NZgreygoose (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Greygoose: I have deleted your edit in which you called me a liar. Calling me a liar is a personal attack. Please read WP:No personal attacks where it says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Turtletop (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (For unknown reasons Turtletop removed this paragraph, and I am reinstating it). I see Turtletop justifies another edit by calling Jock Anderson a "gossip columist". Jock Anderson is a journalist of both the Herald and the National Business Review and his specialty is Law. He also commentates regularly, on matters of Law, for Radio NZ. He is hardly a "gossip columist". The citation removed by Turtletop was one in which Jock Anderson wrote on the amount of Legal Aid paid to Joe Karam personally for his work on the retrial. The information was obtained via OIA request (by Mike Stockdale as it happens) and is an accurate figure. NZgreygoose (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * it appears impossible to have Wikipedia written with a neutral POV with Turtletop, clearly obsessed over david bain, treating this as his own personal blog, writing it as some sort of romantic love letter. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia with all the facts. if david bain is so 'innocent', why have the professionals trained to fight crime, an organisation of over 8,000 sworn staff - the New Zealand Police - maintained he is guilty, for two decades?. turtletop needs to be stopped from dictating direction. all the facts should be included in a neutral fashion - and this is not happening now''' Garglesaver (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In New Zealand, guilt is not decided by the police. It is decided by the courts. Catch up with reality. This is the 21st century and Bain has been found not guilty by the courts. Last century, when David was first convicted, the police (and the first jury) got it wrong. Turtletop (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One could argue that last century the police and the first jury got it right but in 2009 because David Bain's lawyers managed to convince the jury there was reasonable doubt, the jury got it wrong. And it should be pointed out that three times during the retrial the defence applied for a mistrial/stay to prevent the case reaching a conclusion. Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes Bain was convicted last century. Some people to this day, being the 21st Century, still believe the first jury got it right, which is why this article remains controversial. That is reality also, Turtletop. The current section on Second Trial is now contains not one, but two paragraphs of what Cottle's 1994/1995 Statements said. (evidence for the Defense, among the complete absence of any other evidence in this section). And dubious evidence at that, given Cottle's resiling from it both in 1995 and in 2007, and never being cross-examined in either trial. Cottle's words are again repeated verbatim, thanks to Turtletop, and now preceeded by "According to Panckhurst, Cottle said ". This is non-neutral POV editing on Turtletop's part. Similarly in the Fisher Report section. When Fisher is giving Binnie credit in the first part, he is 'concluding'. By contrast, When Fisher is criticizing Binnie, he is 'claiming'. How is that non-neutral POV, Turtletop?. Try reversing those two words and then read the paragraph as it would stand then. In the Family Background section we have "Fellow teachers said that in the months preceding the murders, Robin Bain had been "deeply depressed, to the point of impairing his ability to do his job of teaching children". How can teacherS (plural) be quoted?. A quote usually refers to a single person, so how about you get that single teacher whose quote it is, and name them, if you want to add Defense case material like that? I can't see it anywhere in the citation given either. 'Kevin Mackenzie, principal of a primary school near Taieri, subsequently stated that Robin Bain was so depressed he "had lost touch with reality due to his mental state".' How is this person's opinion non neutral POV, given he is not a psychiatrist?. This is yet more Defense spin, masquerading as a family history. As is the inclusion in this section in two paragraphs more quotes from good old Cottle, some real authority on Bain family history, not. NZgreygoose (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question for Turtletop; If, as you claim, the first trial is 'irrelvant' as the verdict was later overturned, then why are you now adding in more sections from the Binnie Report, which was discredited by peer review, and set aside.? Some could argue the Binnie Report's current status is that of 'irrelevant', too, that is, based on your line of reasoning. The latest edit you have made to Binnie's Conclusions section, is adding in material deemed contentious by Collins and Fisher, some of it strongly refuted by the Police once they responded, and other parts of it simply showing Binnie's (and your) bias against Police. I am wondering what the rationale behind your editing is, since November?. It is to pre-empt the imminent release of the Callinan Report, perhaps? As you have not explained your latest edits here on Talk, as you have ordered me and others to do, I am left in the dark.NZgreygoose (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's allegations should not be linked to Robin's alleged depression
I have merged Dean Cottle's statements together. They were previously split, with his statement that Laniet was about to reveal her father's alleged incest being immediately followed by details of Robin's alleged depression. There seemed to be no justification for the split, except that it seemed designed to create the impression that the depression was the result of the threatened revelation. It is WP:NPOV to attempt to make that link. If Robin Bain was depressed, there could have been causes other than allegations about to be made by his daughter. Akld guy (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an improvement. According to Cottle Laniet was only going to "spill the beans" the weekend prior to the Monday killings so there would have been no time for him to get depressed over that threatened revelation.

I will start editing again shortly. In the 1995 trial section it is stated that the prosecution were unable to supply a motive as to why David Bain murdered his family. In fact the prosecutor did suggest a motive in his summing up and I can cite the book Mask of Sanity. I do not have to get a consensus when I cite a reliable source but I thought I would just let other editors know what I am intending to do so that they can comment should they wish to.
 * OK,I have entered the suggested motive and removed the other reference which, as it happens, was citing Counterspin which I believe is considered to be an unreliable source. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why have some of my edits quoting reliable sources been either removed or changed?
 * For example I cited a witness who said David Bain agreed with her that the idea that Laniet had had a baby was "bloody ridiculous" . The item is still there but the words have been changed. I intend to change them back unless someone can tell me why they were changed in the first place. Also a link to Mask of Sanity where it was stated that hospital records showed that Laniet had never had a baby has been removed. On what grounds? Mr Maggoo (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also would like Turtletop to explain why he has deleted statements that the pathologist Dempster stated (or testified, I don't know which) that there was no evidence of stretch marks on Laniet's body, and that hospital records showed no evidence of an admission for an 11 or 12 year old Laniet for obstetrics in Papua New Guinea. These statements appear to have been removed in order to cast Robin Bain in the very worst possible light, when it is more likely that Laniet was given to fantasies. Disclaimer: I do not own and have not read McNeish's book, which was the reference for the removed statements, so cannot vouch for whether the book supports the statements. I just want to know why seemingly valid statements were WP:NPOV? removed. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have that book in front of me and can vouch that those statements appear on page 236. I have edited them back in . Also, I note that Turtletop has re-entered a statement where the Counterspin website is cited. My question is am I also able to use Counterspin as being a reliable source? Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I also point out that in the Robert Fisher section Turtledove has written that Binnie's report was supported by some academics but rejected by others, but the link he has cited only relates to one academic. Yesterday I cited two academics that agreed with Robert Fisher to counter the one academic that didn't. Those two citings have been removed and replaced with one. I suppose I can live with that but I intend to change the word some to one. Mr Maggoo (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would stop editing and discuss on the Talk page. You appear to be making edits that are WP:NPOV. Akld guy (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Turtletop removed the following with the comment, "This is excessive detail and unnecessary in an article about David Bain. If you wish to include it, please discuss on the Talk page first":
 * The pathologist Dr Dempster said he did not see stretch marks on the skin of Laniet to indicate a previous pregnancy and postmortem and police evidence in Dunedin and hospital and medical records in PNG combine to exclude the likelihood of any full term pregnancy or abortion by Laniet aged 11 or 12. 


 * That information about Laniet's alleged pregnancy is highly germane to the question of whether she was pregnant or not, or was given to fantasies. If she was given to fantasies, one of them might have been that her father was in an illicit relationship with her. Turtletop has no right whatsoever to demand that Mr Maggoo discuss this on the Talk page first, because the reference seems good, and there is no justification for removing it other than an attempt by Turtletop to maintain the discreditation of Robin Bain by insinuating that he was the father of an alleged Laniet baby, for which NO EVIDENCE whatsoever exists. Akld guy (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have re-instated the obstetrics evidence that Laniet had almost certainly never given birth. It is now up to to show why that evidence should be removed, or alternatively, that Laniet did give birth. Akld guy (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the edits I made yesterday were additions citing reliable sources . I have been given permission to do that without discussing it on this talk page. Turtletop is either removing some of those sources or changing the wording I have entered. I have not been changing his wording. And I would still like an answer to my question re citing Counterspin as a reference. Turtletop cited Counterspin as a reference yesterday and I can see no reason why I can not do likewise. Also, if you look at that citing [#25] you will see that the words Turtletop has written are not from that reference, not that I intend to change them . Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

At this stage I only intend to cite one more reference, this is to counter accusations of incest. Mr Maggoo (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)